acts and the epistles tom kinzel -...

The 2015 SITS Conference

Acts And The Epistles Tom Kinzel

Introduction:

I. “Indeed, if we did not have Acts, or if Acts were proved historically unreliable, we would know nothing of the earliest days of the Christian movement except for bits of data gathered from the letters of Paul or inferred by looking back from later developments. To attempt a study of early Christianity apart from Acts, therefore, is to proceed mainly ignotum per ignotius (‘the unknown [explained] by the still more unknown’), for information about the early church gained from Paul’s letters often lack an historical context” (Richard Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, The Acts Of The Apostles p. 207).

II. “…the letters from the man [Paul – tk] often do not support the report about him in Acts. Because the Paul of Acts is the Paul most people know best, one should guard against assimilating the Paul of the letters to the Paul of Acts.” (Leander Keck, Paul And His Letters, p. 3).

III. For the last 175 years, critical scholarship has contested the historical reliability of the book of Acts utilizing a number of different approaches, from form criticism, to source criticism, to redaction criticism, to narrative criticism, to postmodernist criticism, and just about every other kind of theological/biblical criticism that has ever been developed.

IV. The previous two quotes demonstrate that one of the key areas of study, if not the key area of study, in which critical scholarship has challenged the accuracy of Luke’s history recorded in Acts is in his description and portrayal of the apostle Paul.

A. Luke, as he describes Paul and the events surrounding his actions in the book of Acts, is said to differ significantly from Paul as he describes himself and his actions in his own letters.

B. In other words, it is argued that Paul and the contents of his letters simply do not and cannot harmonize with the content of Luke’s historical narrative in the book of Acts, particularly those parts which include Paul.

C. “The primary argument against the historicity of Acts is that it completely breaks down the moral character of the Apostle Paul, presenting him as quite a different person than he appears in his own letters.” (Richard Longenecker, Paul, Apostle Of Liberty, p 13).

V. I have been assigned the task of addressing Acts and the epistles, looking at the chronology of when these letters were written, considering the difficulties in chronology, as well as to address the apparent disagreements and discrepancies between Luke’s history recorded in Acts and the contents of the letters that relate to his historical narrative.

VI. This, in essence, is the issue of Paul as Luke describes him in the book of Acts versus the way Paul describes himself in his letters.

VII. A few things to note:

A. I will not be covering the chronology of all 21 letters in the New Testament; that would be an interesting study, as well as a monumental study, but is not the purpose of this study.

B. I will only be considering the letters that relate directly to the historical time period that is recorded in Acts, which is primarily, if not exclusively, letters written by Paul, although not all of Paul’s letters.

C. Any suggested chronology in the ministry of Paul and in his epistles are speculative, although there is sufficient historical information provided in ancient secular historical records that corresponds with both the history in Acts as well as the history in Paul’s letters

Acts And The Epistles 87


creating an overlap that allows highly plausible conclusions as to when some of these letters were written.

VIII. Our approach to this study:

A. Briefly examine a chronology of the epistles, mainly Pauline, as they fall within the historical narrative of Acts.

B. Examine apparent problems and discrepancies in Acts and the Pauline epistles.

1. Historical problems.

2. Theological problems.

3. Problems in the way Luke portrays Paul in Acts compared with the way Paul portrays himself in his letters.

Body:

I. Brief Examination Of The Chronology Of The Epistles As They Fall Within The Historical Narrative Of Acts.

A. Of the twenty one letters in the New Testament, there are only seven which correspond to the history recorded in Acts.

1. The epistle of James.

2. Six epistles of Paul.

a. Romans.

b. 1 Corinthians.

c. 2 Corinthians.

d. Galatians.

e. 1 Thessalonians.

f. 2 Thessalonians

3. Briefly note the other seven epistles of Paul (In this study, these will be mentioned but will not be considered in any detail since they are not relevant to the book of Acts.)

a. The prison epistles – Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon – written (I believe) while Paul was in his first Roman imprisonment, after the book of Acts comes to an end.

b. The pastoral epistles – 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus – written after the book of Acts comes to an end.

B. The epistle of James.

1. Dating when the epistle of James was written will necessarily be determined by one’s understanding of who is its author.

2. Because there are four or maybe five “James” in the New Testament, and the James who wrote this epistle does not actually identify himself, there is disagreement as to who this James was who wrote this letter leading to different conclusions as to when it was written.

3. There are only two possibilities that have been seriously considered over the centuries as to who authored this letter.



a. James, the son of Zebedee, one of the apostles.

1) He was martyred in 44 A.D. at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-2).

2) Most believe he did not write this letter because he would have died too early to have been its author.

b. James, the brother of Jesus.

1) Since the days of Origen (c. 185-235 A.D.) this has been the prominent understanding.

2) Evidence within this letter favors this view as being correct. (Consulting any conservative commentary will provide ample evidence of this. It is not my purpose to prove this point.)

3) Assuming this view is correct, it is understood that this letter must have been written before 62 A.D. since, according to Josephus, this was when James was martyred.

4) There are two primary views as to when it was written.

a) Some argue that James wrote this letter near the end of his life, perhaps in the early 60’s.

b) Most hold to the position that it was written sometime before 50 A.D.

5) Several ideas have been suggested that provides good evidence that James probably wrote this letter somewhere between 45-50 A.D., perhaps making it the first book of the New Testament that was written. (see Donald W. Burdick, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12, James, p. 162).

a) The “Jewishness” of this letter without any mention of Gentiles suggests an early date.

b) The absence of any kind of controversy caused by Judaizers, who insisted on circumcision, also suggests an early date.

c) The use of the Greek word synogogé to describe the church assembly (Jas. 2:2) suggests a time when Christianity was primarily a Jewish phenomenon which also points to an early date.

d) To sum this up, if the late date of the early 60’s is accurate, one would think that James would have had something to say about the Jew/Gentile relationship, since he was involved in this controversy (Acts 15:1-29, esp. v. 13-21), but there is nothing but silence, suggesting that the early date is the more accurate one.

4. Because there are no apparent discrepancies in James and Acts, it is not a factor in arguing for or against the historical reliability of Acts, nor does it present any apparent problems like is said to exist in the epistles of Paul, to which we now turn.

C. Some general remarks on the chronology of Paul’s career.

1. In order to determine the chronology of Paul’s letters, it is important to know something about the chronology of his ministry.

2. It has been correctly noted that determining a precise chronology in the ministry of Paul is impossible, although at least some parts of it can be reasonably discerned and



placed in the historical narrative of Acts due to secular history that overlaps with Luke’s historical narrative recorded in Acts.

3. In Acts 18:12-17, Luke mentions Gallio, the Roman proconsul of Achaia, in connection with Paul’s ministry in Corinth.

a. In the early 20th century an archaeological discovery was made at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece, known as the Gallio Inscription, better known as the Delphi Inscription.

b. This discovery is a series of nine fragments of a letter written by the Roman Emperor, Claudius within the first seven months of the year 52 A.D., which mentions Gallio as the recent proconsul of Achaia.

c. The implication of this document is that Gallio became the proconsul in the early summer of 51 A.D.

d. It has been learned from other sources that for health reasons, Gallio did not remain at this position very long, leaving it sometime during the year of 52 A.D.

e. This historical record provides us with a relatively fixed historical marker for Paul’s ministry, dating Paul’s 18-month stay in Corinth (Acts 18:11), somewhere between the fall of 50 and 52 A.D.

4. It is because of this historical evidence, coupled with Luke’s close attention to Paul’s movements before and after his stay in Corinth that at least five of Paul’s letters can be safely dated between 50 and 56 A.D., and in a reasonable sequence – 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Romans. (More on their chronology later.)

5. When the history of the book of Acts comes to its close, believed to be around A.D. 60, Paul is in Rome under house arrest and he remained in that state for two years (Acts 28:11-31).

6. It is believed by the majority of scholars that this is when the “prison epistles” were written – Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians, in that order.

a. A minority view is that these epistles were written when Paul was imprisoned while at Caesarea, c. A.D. 57-59 (Acts 23:23 – 26:32).

b. I believe the majority view is the correct view, which will be assumed for the purpose of this presentation. (see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings Of The New Testament: An Interpretation, for a defense of this view.)

c. Therefore although these letters are important to a study on the life of Paul in general, they are not relevant to our study of the book of Acts and the epistles, and the apparent problems that exist between them.

d. In other words, these are not usually the letters that are spoken of and/or referred to when addressing the apparent discrepancies in Acts and the epistles, especially the historical discrepancies.

e. Note that the contents of some of these letters are referred to as conflicting with Acts when comparing Paul’s theology and how Paul portrays himself, but this is irrelevant to chronology.

7. After the history of Acts comes to a close, the rest of Paul’s ministry is pure speculation, although built upon extra-biblical sources like Clement of Rome and others.



a. There is the tradition that was believed and circulated by Eusebius and Jerome, of the 4th century A.D., that Paul was acquitted and released from Roman arrest in 62 A.D., but he was rearrested in 65 A.D. during the reign of Nero and was subjected to much harsher treatment, ending with his death.

b. It is believed that during this second imprisonment 2 Timothy was written, which seems to be confirmed by 2 Timothy 1:16-18 and 4:6-18.

8. This leaves 1 Timothy, Titus and Galatians.

a. 1 Timothy and Titus are believed to have been written sometime during the two to three years after Paul was released from Roman house arrest – between 62 and 65 A.D.

b. This leaves remaining the letter to the Galatians, which is the most problematic in dating (as well as problematic in other ways that will be noted) as it relates to the historical narrative of Acts.

c. It is now to the chronology of Galatians (and to the other Pauline letters relevant to the Acts narrative) that we turn our attention.

D. The epistle of Galatians.

1. Of the letters Paul wrote that fall within the historical narrative of Acts, none is more problematic than the letter to the Galatians.

a. It is problematic due to historical content that does not seem to fit within the Acts narrative. (More on this later.)

b. It is problematic because we do not know for certain, nor can we know for certain, to whom it was written, when it was written, and from where it was written.

c. Determining when Galatians was written will be influenced particularly by what one believes as to whom it was written.

2. To whom did Paul address this letter? Two views that lead to different dates for the writing of Galatians.

a. The northern Galatian view – Paul wrote to Christians making up local churches in the old northern, ethnic region known as Galatia.

1) This view holds that Paul did not enter this area until his second evangelistic trip, the history of which Luke alludes to but does not record (Acts 16:6).

2) It is suggested that this is the area that Paul revisited on his third evangelistic trip, as noted in the terminology used by Luke (Acts 18:23).

3) This position assumes this letter was written subsequent to the events of Acts 18:23, i.e., a late date, usually believed to have been written from Ephesus during Paul’s lengthy stay there (c. 54-56 A.D.; Acts 19) or Macedonia (c. 56 A.D.; Acts 20:1).

b. The southern Galatian view – Paul wrote to Christians making up local churches in the southern region of the larger Roman province known as Galatia.

1) This view holds that the churches Paul established in Galatia during his first evangelistic trip (Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, & Derbe) are the same churches he revisited during his second and third evangelistic trips, trips that Luke does record.



2) If this is the correct setting, then Galatians could have been written either between Paul’s first and second trips, during his second trip, or even his third trip making the time period in question anywhere from, 48-56 A.D., perhaps making Galatians the earliest of Paul’s letters.

3) This broad period of time has been made even more specific based upon two different positions relating to the “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15).

a) Some (a minority) take the view that Galatians was probably written before the “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15), probably while Paul was in Antioch in between his first and second trips (Acts 14:24-28), dating it around 48-49 A.D.

b) Most take the view that Galatians was probably written after the “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15), perhaps while Paul was in Corinth (Acts 18:1-17), or maybe Antioch during the period of Acts 18:22, or maybe even during his extended stay in Ephesus (Acts 19), dating it anywhere from 51-56 A.D.

c) I am inclined to take the minority view – that Galatians was written before the “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15), probably from Antioch around 48-49 A.D.

d) This will be discussed in more detail when we consider some of the apparent historical discrepancies relating to this “Jerusalem Council.”

3. Basically what this all comes down to is what Luke Timothy Johnson said about trying to assign a date to the writing of Galatians (as well as 1 Timothy and Titus): “Informed guesses are possible, but they remain guesses.” (The Writings Of The New Testament: An Interpretation, p. 250).

E. The other five epistles of Paul relevant to the historical narrative of Acts.

1. Due to the historical marker in Paul’s ministry, i.e., the time of Gallio’s presence in Corinth, the dating of 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Romans is made easier and with much greater probability.

a. The implication of the Delphi inscription, referred to earlier, is that Gallio became the proconsul of Achaia in the early summer of 51 A.D.

b. Gallio did not remain at this position very long, leaving it sometime during the year of 52 A.D., either in the late fall or early winter.

c. Paul is known to have been in Corinth for a period of 18 months, which included at least part of Gallio’s rule as proconsul, as referred to in Acts 18:11-18.

d. This would date Paul’s stay in Corinth somewhere between the fall of 50 A.D. and 52 A.D.

e. Using this historical marker along with Luke’s relatively detailed account of Paul’s movements coupled with historical information in Paul’s letters, we can count backwards and forwards to determine with a certain amount of probability both Paul’s locations from which he wrote these letters along with the times in which they were written.

2. 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

a. It has been suggested that Paul’s trial before Gallio would have occurred at the beginning of Gallio’s rule as proconsul (early summer of 51 A.D.) because it



appears that Paul’s Jewish accusers tried to take advantage of Gallio’s inexperience (Acts 18:12-13).

b. This being true, Paul’s departure from Corinth would most likely have occurred sometime in the late fall of 51 A.D.

c. During Paul’s second evangelistic journey, he spent at least 18 months in Corinth (Acts 18:11).

d. Counting backward, subtracting 18 months, we can conclude that when Paul arrived in Corinth, coming from the city of Athens (Acts 18:1), it was probably in the early spring of 50 A.D.

e. Initially in Athens alone, Paul was eventually once again joined by Silas and Timothy (Acts 17:10-15), but Paul, being deeply concerned about the converts at Thessalonica, sent Timothy back to learn of their state and to strengthen them, leaving him alone in Athens once again (1 Thess. 3:1-5). (Note that it is suggested that Paul probably sent Silas back to Philippi with the same intent.)

f. Timothy, along with Silas, eventually rejoined Paul after his arrival in Corinth (Acts 18:5), bringing goods news to Paul about the condition of the Christians at Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:6-7), resulting in the writing of 1 Thessalonians.

g. From the time of Paul’s arrival in Corinth, probably in the early spring of 50 A.D., to Timothy’s arrival, probably just a few months later, we can give a probable date for both the place and time of the writing of 1 Thessalonians.

1) The most probable place is Corinth (cf. Acts 18:5 w/ 1 Thess. 3:6).

2) The most probable time is during Paul’s second evangelistic trip, either late spring or early summer of 50 A.D.

h. In light of the foregoing remarks, 2 Thessalonians must have also been written during Paul’s stay in Corinth shortly after 1 Thessalonians was written.

1) This is deduced by the fact that although Paul and Timothy are known to be together after this time, Paul, Silas, and Timothy are not, so it had to be written at a time when all three of them were still together (cf. Acts. 18:5 w/ 1 Thess. 1:1 & 2 Thess. 1:1).

2) This factor, coupled with the fact that the conditions stated in 2 Thessalonians are generally the same as in 1 Thessalonians, would lead one to believe that 2 Thessalonians was written shortly after 1 Thessalonians.

3) The most probable time is late summer or early fall of 50 A.D.

3. 1 Corinthians.

a. Counting forward from Paul’s departure from Corinth in the late fall of 51 A.D., this letter must have been written sometime after this date.

b. We know that when Paul left Corinth he sailed for Antioch of Syria via Cenchreae, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Jerusalem (Acts 18:18-22).

c. After spending “some time” in Antioch, Paul left on his third evangelistic trip, visiting the churches in Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23), traveling on to Ephesus where he stayed for almost three years (cf. Acts 19:1, 8-10 w/ 20:31).



d. While at Ephesus, Paul heard of the troubles at Corinth through reports from Chloe’s household (1 Cor. 1:11), and perhaps also from a delegation sent to Paul from Corinth (1 Cor. 16:17), which is what motivated this letter.

e. We know that the place 1 Corinthians was written from was Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8-9, 19), confirming that 1 Corinthians had to be written a few years after Paul left Corinth in the late fall of 51 A.D.

f. The evidence also suggests that it was written towards the end of Paul’s lengthy stay in Ephesus, most likely written either in late winter or early spring, as deduced by Paul informing the Corinthians of his desire to depart Ephesus after the upcoming Day of Pentecost, which occurred in late spring, and to spend the next winter with them (1 Cor. 16:5-8).

g. Putting this all together, we can conclude that the writing of 1 Corinthians must have taken place at least 3+ years after Paul’s departure from Corinth which most likely occurred in the late fall of 51 A.D.

h. What is even more likely is that it was written four or even five years after his departure from Corinth due to the time it would take for him to journey from Corinth to Antioch of Syria with all of its different stops, along with his extended stay in Antioch followed by the early part of his third evangelistic journey through Galatia and Phrygia, finally coming to Ephesus.

i. This would place the writing of 1 Corinthians from Ephesus, probably some time in the late winter of 55 A.D. or the early spring of 56 A.D.

4. 2 Corinthians.

a. Dating 2 Corinthians has proven to be a little more problematic than 1 Corinthians, which means we may be able to reach only tentative conclusions as to its chronology, although with some probability.

b. Paul’s plan was to leave Ephesus after Pentecost and arrive in Corinth before the winter of what appears to be 56 A.D. (1 Cor. 16:5-8).

c. Luke tells us that after Paul finally left Ephesus he went through the region of Macedonia and then Greece, spending three months in Greece, most likely the winter months in Corinth, which is what he had planned (Acts 20:1-3).

d. There are hints of Paul coming to Corinth found in 2 Corinthians (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1), which would suggest that this letter was written before that winter that Paul intended to stay with the Corinthian brethren.

e. This being the case, 2 Corinthians is believed to have been written after Paul left Ephesus, but before he arrived in Corinth, leaving the location of the writing somewhere in Macedonia.

f. It has been speculated that he wrote from Philippi, although there is no way to confirm this.

g. But, based on everything else, a viable if not probable date of the writing of 2 Corinthians is during Paul’s third evangelistic trip in the late fall of 56 A.D., prior to his arrival in Corinth for the winter.

5. Romans.

a. At the end of 56 A.D., Paul spent three months in Corinth before beginning his journey back to Jerusalem, a journey which probably took place in the spring of



57 A.D. since he was trying to get back to Jerusalem before Pentecost (Acts 20:3, 16).

b. It is important to note that during Paul’s third evangelistic journey, he was in the process of taking up a collection from among the Gentile churches to help in the benevolent needs of the church at Jerusalem, as well as to create a bond of unity between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; 9:1-5).

c. At the time of the writing of 2 Corinthians, which was after Paul left Ephesus and was traveling through Macedonia on his way to Corinth, it appears that this collection was incomplete (2 Cor. 8-9).

d. But at the time of the writing of Romans, this collection appears to have been completed and Paul was ready to leave for Jerusalem desiring to get there before Passover, which occurred in late spring (Rom. 15:25-26; Acts 20:16).

e. This seems to indicate that the collection was completed during Paul’s stay over the winter months with the church at Corinth, which would have been late 56 A.D. through early 57 A.D.

f. This being the case, this would suggest that Paul wrote the letter to the Romans while in Corinth during his stay through the winter months, before he left for Jerusalem.

g. This gives us the probable date of either late winter 56 A.D., or early spring 57 A.D. when Romans was written.

II. Apparent Problems And Discrepancies In Acts And The Pauline Epistles.

A. Historical problems.

1. Note: I will not be addressing all of the apparent historical problems found in the book of Acts, only those that relate to the Pauline letters, and then only some of them.

2. The problem stated:

a. The book of Acts contains the only historical narrative account of Paul’s ministry, but it is a “secondhand” source.

1) It was written by Luke as he was looking back on Paul’s ministry, and not by Paul, himself.

2) What Luke writes about Paul’s ministry is not contemporary to the events he records, i.e., he is writing later than the events he records. (Acts is believed to have been written c. 64 A.D.)

b. The letters of Paul, on the other hand, are “firsthand” and therefore they are the primary sources in looking at the history of his ministry.

1) Paul wrote his own letters (although we know that some of those letters were most likely dictated – cf. Rom. 16:22)

2) Within many of these letters are references to historical events to which he was contemporary.

3) Therefore, to an historian, Paul’s letters would have greater value as historical sources than the book of Acts.



c. The problem is that the history that Paul records in his letters and the history that Luke records in Acts appear to disagree at significant points, bringing into question the historical reliability of the Acts narrative.

3. Examples:

a. Paul’s visits to Jerusalem.

1) According to the Acts account, after Paul’s conversion to Christianity, he visited Jerusalem at least four, and probably five times, but according to Paul’s own account in his letters, particularly Galatians, he only visited Jerusalem three times, presenting what appears to be an historical discrepancy.

a) The Acts account:

1] 1st Visit: After his conversion (Acts 9:20-26)

2] 2nd Visit: Benevolent relief sent to the Jerusalem church by the church at Antioch (Acts 11:27-30)

3] 3rd Visit: The “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15:1-2)

4] 4th Visit: Returning from his second evangelistic journey before going up to Antioch (Acts 18:22)

a] (Note that some believe that this was the church at Caesarea, not Jerusalem.)

5] 5th Visit: Returning from his third evangelistic journey, leading to his arrest (Acts 21:15)

b) Paul’s account in his letters:

1] 1st Visit: Three years after his conversion, Paul made a brief visit to Jerusalem, visiting Peter and James (Gal. 1:18).

2] 2nd Visit: “After fourteen years” (most likely fourteen years after his conversion) he went to Jerusalem again in the company of Barnabas and Titus (Gal. 2:1-10).

3] 3rd Visit: A planned visit to Jerusalem to bring a collection from the Gentile churches to the church in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25-26).

2) Is there a conflict between the Acts account and Paul’s account?

a) It is recognized by just about everyone that the Acts account of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem corresponds with Paul’s own account of this first visit (Gal. 1:18 = Acts 9:20-26).

b) It is also recognized that Paul’s account of his planned visit to Jerusalem, i.e., his last visit, is in fact historically verified by the Acts account (Rom. 15:25-26 = Acts 21:15ff).

c) The real conflict is the apparent discrepancy found in the Acts account of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem and Paul’s own account of his second visit to Jerusalem.

1] It is believed by a majority that Paul’s account of his second visit (Gal. 2:1ff), corresponds to the Acts account of Paul’s third visit at the “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15:1ff).



2] But why would Paul not mention the second visit that is mentioned in the Acts account? Is the Acts account unreliable?

a] Some have tried to get around the weight of this apparent discrepancy by arguing that Paul most likely didn’t refer to the second visit that is spoken of in Acts 11 because it would have served him no real purpose.

b] Therefore, just because he didn’t refer to it, or didn’t even mention it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

3] I don’t believe this is satisfactory.

a] One of Paul’s main points in Galatians is that his message did not come from men, not even other apostles, but from divine revelation alone (Gal. 1:11-17).

b] Since this was what he was seeking to establish, then the amount of times he visited Jerusalem, where the apostles were, would have been important to his argument since going to Jerusalem too many times would suggest to some a dependence upon the other apostles, and perhaps even a lesser status than them.

c] I believe there is a better way to address this chronological problem and resolve this apparent discrepancy.

1} The second visit that Paul speaks of in Galatians 2 is not the same as the third visit Luke speaks of in Acts 15, but instead is the same as the second visit Luke mentions in Acts 11.

2} In other words, Galatians 2:1ff ≠ Acts 15:1ff, but Galatians 2:1ff = Acts 11:27-30.

3} To support this view requires examining the account of the “Jerusalem Council,” which presents another apparent historical discrepancy.

b. The “Jerusalem Council.”

1) This particular event creates some problems from both an historical and theological standpoint, as it relates to the Acts narrative and Paul’s letters.

2) We will look at the apparent historical problems now and look at the apparent theological problems later.

3) The historical problems center in two questions:

a) When did it happen?

b) Did it happen at all, i.e., did this “council” actually take place?

4) Is the “Jerusalem Council” recorded in Acts 15 a true, historical event?

a) In looking at the value of the historical writings included in the New Testament, modern critics have argued that these “so-called historical writings” tell us more about the authors who wrote them than they do about the events they claim to be reporting.



b) As this is applied to the book of Acts, it is argued that Luke’s alleged purpose in recording this supposed “Jerusalem Council” was to fit his particular literary, theological agenda without any real interest in its historicity.

c) Some have asked that if this actually was an historical event, then why didn’t Paul utilize the results of it, i.e., the letter that was produced (Acts 15:23-29), in the contents of his own letters, especially in Galatians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians where this would seem relevant (cf. Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8-9)?

d) This, I believe, is an extremely important question.

1] As this relates to Romans and 1 Corinthians it can be argued that instead of Paul using the results of this council, it was his desire to make his own case on how to handle the problems stemming from the Jew/Gentile relationship based on his own authority as an apostle and not the authority of the other apostles, focusing on the principle of Christian liberty and not on what could appear to be apostolic law. (see Richard Longenecker, Paul, Apostle Of Liberty for a detailed explanation of this point.)

2] Galatians, on the other hand, does not seem to lend itself to that kind of explanation since Paul is dealing with something completely different, i.e., the legalizing attempt of Jewish Christians to bind Gentile Christians under the Jewish law.

3] The best way, I believe, to answer the question of why Paul did not mention the results of this council in the Galatian letter is not to deny its historicity, but instead to take the view that this council had not yet occurred when Paul wrote this letter. (More on this later.)

4] Whatever the case, at this point, what we need to understand is that Paul’s non-use of the results of the Jerusalem Council in his letters can be explained without resorting to the extreme position that the “Jerusalem Council” didn’t happen.

e) As Darrell Bock has argued, “This is far too skeptical a reading of Luke’s work. There is little doubt that such debate [the controversy that brought about this council – tk] existed in the early church. We should not confuse selectivity with creativity and overplay the differences in the account.” (Baker Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament: Acts, p. 488).

5) When did the “Jerusalem Council” take place?

a) Review the apparent historical discrepancy.

1] Acts records at least four, and possibly five, visits that Paul made to Jerusalem, but Paul, in Galatians, only records two visits.

2] It is this second visit Paul recounts in Galatians 2 which lends itself to the apparent historical discrepancy with the book of Acts.

b) So, the question is, is the second visit Paul speaks of in Galatians 2 the third visit recorded in Acts 15 or is it the second visit recorded in Acts 11?



1] Both positions have strengths and weaknesses, but I believe that the one presenting the least amount of difficulty as well as providing the most satisfactory explanation of the Acts account of Paul’s travels is equating Paul’s account of his second visit in Jerusalem with the Acts account of Paul’s second visit in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1ff = Acts 11:27-30).

2] This removes any apparent historical discrepancy between Acts and Galatians.

3] And I believe, if for no other reason, that this provides a powerful explanation to the criticism of why Paul did not use the letter resulting from this council to argue his point in the Galatian letter.

a] It would have been easy for him to do so.

b] It would have been extremely helpful for him to do since it provided an authoritative argument for him to defend his position against the Jewish legalizers.

c] So, why didn’t he use the results of the “Jerusalem Council”? Most likely because it had not yet happened.

c) Based on this, I offer a suggested chronology of Paul’s early ministry.

1] Barnabas located Paul in Tarsus and took him back to Antioch where they worked with the church there, a church made up primarily of Gentiles (Acts 11:19-26).

2] While there, the prophet Agabus came to Antioch with a revelation from the Spirit that a great famine was to occur, which motivated the Christians at Antioch to send benevolent relief to their Jewish brothers in Jerusalem and Judea (Acts 11:27-30).

3] Because of this revelation, Paul and Barnabas, and apparently also Titus, went to Jerusalem with this relief, and while there Paul related the message that he had been preaching among the Gentiles to James, Peter, and John, who had no issues with Paul’s teaching and extended their fellowship to him (Gal. 2:1-10).

a] Note that Galatians 2:2 says that Paul went up to Jerusalem “by revelation” (NKJV), i.e., “because of a revelation” (ESV, NASB), or “in response to a revelation” (NIV).

b] This seems to fit the events of Acts 11:27-30, i.e., the revelation given to Agabus by the Spirit, better than the events of Acts 15:1-3 which was the result of a church decision.

4] It appears that this brief meeting resolved the issue of whether or not Gentiles could be and should be included in the family of God, but it did not resolve what would become the bigger issue, i.e., on what basis can Gentiles enter the family, an issue that would eventually have to be addressed.

5] Paul and company then returned to Antioch and eventually were sent out on their first evangelistic journey, a large portion of which



consisted of traveling through southern Galatia, establishing churches (Acts 13:1 – 14:28).

6] When they returned to Antioch, having completed their first trip, they remained a long time (Acts 14:28), and during this time it is apparent the issue that had been festering finally came to a head, i.e., the issue of on what basis can Gentiles enter the family of God.

7] It became a problem starting in Antioch, spreading to Jerusalem, and appears to have spread as far as Galatia from very early on.

a] That this was a problem in Antioch is made evident by the fact that Peter at some point came to Antioch and although initially had table fellowship with Gentiles, withdrew that fellowship when some Jewish brothers from Jerusalem came there and started causing problems, which then forced Paul to get into this dispute (cf. Gal. 2:11-14 w/ Acts 15:1-2).

b] It had clearly become a problem among the churches in Galatia which is what caused Paul to write this letter.

c] Assuming that this letter was written to the southern churches in the Roman province of Galatia, and assuming that it was written before the Jerusalem Council, for reasons already stated, this letter would have been Paul’s earliest letter, written c. 48-49 A.D., for the purpose of trying to resolve this extremely critical issue.

d] Because it became such a major issue in Antioch, particularly due to Peter’s influence, the issue was taken to Jerusalem for discussion and consultation, resulting in the Spirit-led decision that Gentiles do not have to become Jews to be a part of God’s family, but they should respect Jewish culture and Jewish ways.

e] And, as F.F. Bruce noted with respect to Peter and the precarious position he found himself in since he was partially responsible for the magnitude of this controversy, “Peter must have welcomed this resolution of the dilemma.” (The IVP Dictionary Of The New Testament, ed. Daniel G. Reid, p. 844).

6) It is granted that this is only one view that can be taken; there are other views that also make sense of the information that we have both from Acts and Galatians, but this does prove my point when it comes to what is an apparent discrepancy, i.e., it is only apparent, but in reality there is no discrepancy.

a) The history that Paul records of himself in Galatians can be understood in different ways that do not conflict with the historical narrative in the book of Acts.

b) Perhaps the only thing we can say that is true about trying to resolve these historical issues is that, “These historical questions have proved incapable of sure resolution.” (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings Of The New Testament: An Interpretation, p. 234, my emphasis).



c) “When the events and statements of Acts cannot be correlated with those of Galatians, there is another solution besides a skepticism of the veracity of Acts.” (Richard Longenecker, Paul, Apostle Of Liberty, p. 258).

c. The resurrection appearance of Jesus to Paul.

1) It is argued that in Paul’s letters he speaks of his experience of the resurrection appearance of Jesus as an objective reality, i.e., that Jesus actually physically appeared to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-8).

2) But in the Acts account it is argued that Luke speaks of Paul’s experience as a vision, not an objective reality (Acts 26:19).

a) In Acts 9, it is argued that Luke is emphasizing that Paul heard something, not that he saw something, or someone.

b) It is further argued that, according to the Acts account, Paul saw a brilliant light, but not a bodily resurrected Jesus (Acts 9:3; 26:13).

c) Instead, the Acts account has Paul declaring that he had the experience of a vision (Acts 26:19), which is then defined to mean a mystical, inward spiritual experience, which is then described as what Luke understood to have happened to Paul.

3) Response:

a) The Greek word for “vision” (optasia) carries with it the objective reality of the thing that is seen (see Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 355-361).

b) In other words, this was not some kind of mystical, inward experience that Paul had, but was in fact an objective reality, i.e., Jesus appeared to Paul.

1] Even though Luke records this event as seeing a brilliant light, this does not suggest this was not an actual appearance of the bodily resurrected Christ.

2] What it suggests is Jesus in His glorified bodily state (cf. Lk. 9:28-29; Mat. 17:1-2 – the transfiguration).

c) The way Luke characterizes what Paul saw in the speech he records in Acts 26 makes it clear that Luke recognized this experience as a real, external event and not some type of mystical, inward experience.

1] Everyone in Paul’s company saw the light, not just Paul, and they reacted to it (Acts 26:13).

2] It is clear from this that it was an external event all experienced, although Luke goes on to show that only Paul understood what it was all about.

d) It is also clear throughout the Acts narrative that Luke recognized that what Paul experienced was more than just an internal, mystical experience, but was indeed an actual appearance of Jesus to Paul (cf. Acts 9:17, 27; 22:14-15; 26:16).



e) And so, we can safely conclude that what Paul said he experienced in his letters is the same thing that Luke said Paul experienced in his historical narrative recorded in Acts.

d. The silence in the book of Acts about the collection for the saints in Jerusalem that Paul speaks of in his letters.

1) In some of Paul’s letters that are relevant to the historical timeframe in the book of Acts, he speaks of a “collection for the saints” in Jerusalem that was of great importance to him (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-28).

2) It is alleged that the book of Acts knows almost nothing about this collection which is believed to be an argument against its historical trustworthiness, because if something as important as this collection clearly was to Paul is not mentioned in Acts, then nothing in the Acts narrative can be trusted.

3) Response:

a) There are passages in Acts that cannot be properly understood unless this collection for the saints is their background

1] Acts 20:4.

a] As Paul begins his journey back to his homeland, he is being accompanied by a large entourage of mostly Gentile Christians.

b] Why is this?

c] The only real satisfactory explanation is that they are the representatives from the different Gentile churches who participated in this collection (1 Cor. 16:3).

2] Acts 24:17.

a] Paul, in giving his defense before Felix, while kept in Roman custody in Caesarea, related the order of events that led to his arrest in Jerusalem.

b] He specifically refers to “alms” which is the most definitive statement in the Acts narrative confirming the fact that Paul had brought a collection from the Gentile churches to the church in Jerusalem.

b) To say that the book of Acts knows nothing of this collection which was so important to Paul is just wrong.

c) Once again, the historical trustworthiness of Acts in comparison with Paul’s letters is vindicated.

4. There are many other alleged historical discrepancies said to exist in the book of Acts and Paul’s letters, but we have looked at what are considered major problems.

B. Theological problems.


a. It is argued that through the actions and speeches of Paul as they are reported in the book of Acts, Luke is not actually revealing what Paul, himself, believed as much as he is telling us, through the voice and actions of Paul, what he believed.



b. In other words it is believed by liberal scholars that Luke in the book of Acts is not describing Paul’s theology, but is describing his own theology, through the words and actions of Paul (as it is believed he was also doing through Peter, Stephen, etc.).

c. So, when you compare the theology attributed to Paul as revealed in the Acts account with Paul’s theology as revealed in his letters, there appears to be significant differences.

d. As we have noted, Paul’s letters are properly recognized as the firsthand sources for his history, and the same is true of his theology, with the Acts account being secondhand.

e. In light of this, since there appears to be such significant differences in the Acts account of Paul’s theology compared to Paul’s account of his own theology, it has been concluded that the Acts account must be considered unreliable.

2. Examples:

a. The issue of Jewish vows and customs.

1) It has been observed that throughout Paul’s letters he makes a passionate argument against the Jewish-held belief that for a Gentile to be saved and to be a part of God’s people one had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, a belief that many Jewish Christians held (cf. Gal. 2:15-17; 5:2-6; Rom. 3:21-26; Phil. 3:5-9).

2) But in the Acts narrative, Paul is seen as one who participates in Jewish practices and customs in accordance with the law, lending his support to the continual practice of observing the law, which appears to be in conflict with his theology found in his letters.

a) The circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:1-3).

b) The cutting of his hair at Cenchrea in the completion of a vow (Acts 18:18).

c) The observance of a vow in which he joined four Jewish Christians in a lengthy temple ritual which included purification and an offering in fulfillment of that vow (Acts 21:23-26).

3) It appears from this that either the Acts account of Paul reveals that he contradicted his own theology and its application, or else Luke is reporting events that didn’t really happen.

4) Response:

a) All of this can best be answered by stating that “…the Christian Paul lived as a practicing Jew.” (Jacob Jervell, The Unknown Paul, p. 73).

1] Paul never objected to Jewish practices per se that were part of the law, and in fact, continued in them himself, as well as encouraging other Jewish Christians to continue in them (cf. 1 Cor. 7:17-18; 9:19-21).

2] What Paul objected to was the teaching that it was this practice, this observance of the law, that made one a part of God’s family, and identified one as part of God’s family.



3] When Judaizers appeared on the scene teaching and requiring that Gentiles had to be circumcised and observe the law of Moses, i.e., become “Jewish,” in order to be a part of God’s family, Paul resisted this, as seen in the Galatian letter.

4] But these Jewish Christians were still Jews, carrying with them a national heritage, culture, and traditions that were a part of who they were as a people.

5] This being true, these Jewish Christians did not have to give up their ceremonies that were a part of the law, and which demonstrated a particular way of life for those who were still Jews.

6] What they had to understand, though, and what Paul taught was that this was not what saved them, nor what made them a part of God’s family, nor what identified them as a part of God’s family, and to require this was to pervert the gospel, bringing upon the one who taught this the curse of God (cf. Gal. 1:6-8).

7] “Thus, while he strongly denounced those who asserted that the Law was necessary for righteousness and/or fellowship within the Church, he also tolerated in Christian love those who were true believers and yet who viewed the Law as a necessary form of religious expression and manner of life for all with a Jewish background.” (Richard Longenecker, Paul, Apostle Of Liberty, p. 251).

8] “Paul, who was a Jew before his conversion, did not ridicule and trample the Law of Moses, as was slanderously reported to the Jews at Jerusalem. Paul never said that one could not go to the temple to pray. Paul did say this – that the keeping of the Law of Moses was no longer necessary to salvation. The New Testament nowhere says that the Old Testament (which had been revealed by God) was false, or that the Old Testament practices were now ‘taboo.’ Paul did not compromise when his freedom in Christ was at stake. But he did try to be all things to all men, wherever possible with consistent Christian principles.” (Gareth L. Reese, New Testament History: Acts, p. xxix).

b) Paul was not being inconsistent in his theology by observing these Jewish customs that were a part of the Jewish law, but was very consistent basing his practices on what he firmly believed and taught – Christian liberty (1 Cor. 9:19-21).

c) So we can safely conclude that Luke is not reporting events in Paul’s life that conflicted with his own theology, but were, in fact, events that reflected his theology and would be expected of one who understood this principle of Christian liberty.

b. The issue of continued preaching to Jews as recorded in Acts when Paul identifies himself in his letters as the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7-8).

1) In examining Paul’s procedures on his evangelistic trips, the Acts account describes Paul as usually beginning his work in each city by preaching in the local synagogue, and continuing to do this until he was finally rejected, at which point he would then turn to the Gentiles.



a) Salamis on the island of Cyprus (Acts 13:5).

b) Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:14, 42-45).

c) Iconium (Acts 14:1).

d) Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-2).

e) Athens (Acts 17:17).

f) Corinth (Acts 18:4).

g) Ephesus (Acts 19:8-10).

2) It is this enormous interest in the Jews, as described in the Acts account, on the part of a man who declared of himself within his letters to be sent by God to the Gentiles, (cf. Gal. 1:7-9), that has caused many to doubt the historicity of the Acts account.

3) Response:

a) It has been correctly argued that Paul’s practice of first going to the synagogue and working among the Jews of the Diaspora was the most logical way for him to reach out to the Gentiles.

1] The synagogue would provide Paul with an audience among Gentiles most likely to accept the message of the gospel.

2] It is here that he would meet pagan Gentiles who had been converted to Judaism, i.e., proselytes.

3] But perhaps more especially he would meet those Gentiles who, although not true converts, were sympathizers with Judaism, i.e., the “God-fearers” (cf. Acts 13:16, 26).

b) But I believe there is also another explanation found within Paul’s letters that more fully enlightens us on Paul’s interest in the Jews and his practice of going first to the synagogues.

1] “Paul’s mission among the Gentiles has the salvation of Israel in view.” (Jacob Jervell, The Unknown Paul, p. 74).

2] Paul makes clear in his writings that his heart ached for his people and that he would do anything to see Israel saved, including being cut off from Christ himself if that were possible (Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1).

3] It is evident that with this attitude, Paul understood that at least part of his mission among the Gentiles could serve as a means to bring about the salvation of Israel (Rom. 9-11, esp. 10:1; 11:13-14).

4] There was no doubt in Paul’s mind that Jesus chose him to be the apostle to the Gentiles, but he never recognized this calling as a total disregard for Jews (cf. Acts 9:15).

5] “He [Paul – tk] was attempting to follow his Lord’s practice and command of putting the Jew first – but never allowing that order to stand in his way or detain him from his primary responsibility to the Gentile.” (Richard Longenecker, Paul, Apostle Of Liberty, p. 253).



6] “The destiny of Israel occupies the Lukan Paul, and this very theme becomes decisive for the Pauline Paul.” (Jacob Jervell, The Unknown Paul, p. 75).

c) So when comparing the Acts account of Paul’s practice in preaching to the Jew first and then the Gentile with Paul’s letters which indicate his work to be to the Gentiles, there is no discrepancy in his theology or practice (cf. Rom. 1:16).

3. There are other alleged theological discrepancies said to exist in the book of Acts and Paul’s letters, but we have looked at what are the most often addressed theological problems, and have seen that there really are no discrepancies.

C. Disparate Portrayals Of Paul.


a. In the Acts account, Luke portrays Paul as a charismatic miracle worker who is skilled in rhetoric as demonstrated in his eloquence and masterful ability to speak in just about every situation.

1) Paul is reported to work signs and wonders, performing miracles of judgment, healings, exorcisms, and even one resurrection (Acts 13:9-11; 19:11; 20:7-10).

2) Paul is described as an eloquent speaker before Jews in the synagogue, before sophisticated pagan philosophers in Athens, and before people in positions of power and authority (Acts 13:16-40; 17:22-31; 24:10-21; 26:1-29).

3) Paul is portrayed as being resourceful, clever, and quick-thinking when in crises (Acts 16:25-32, 35-39; 22:22-38; 25:1-12; 27:21-32).

b. But Paul portrays himself in his letters as one who is weak and sickly, not eloquent in speech, and the least talented in his abilities to preach and teach.

1) He characterizes himself as one who is not eloquent in speaking (1 Cor. 2:1-5; 2 Cor. 11:6).

2) He portrays himself as one who was weak, sick, and fearful (1 Cor. 2:1-5; Gal. 4:12-14).

3) Although he acknowledges his ability to work signs and wonders, he downplays these things in deference to the preaching of the cross (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 15:18-19 w/ 1 Cor. 2:1-5).

c. “When we compare the Lukan Paul with the Pauline Paul, as it is regularly done, is it actually the Pauline Paul we are dealing with?” (Jacob Jervell, The Unknown Paul, p. 69).

d. In other words, is Paul, as portrayed by Luke in the Acts account, the same Paul as portrayed by Paul, himself, in his letters?

2. Response:

a. The best way to respond to this critical observation is to understand that the purpose(s) for which Luke wrote Acts and the purpose(s) for which Paul wrote his letters are vastly different.



1) Although Acts contains history and was written within the literary genre of historical narrative, Luke has a much deeper purpose than just the recording of pure history.

2) The purpose of Acts.

a) There can be discerned multiple reasons as to why Luke wrote Acts. (see Richard Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, The Acts Of The Apostles p. 216-221 for a detailed explanation of each purpose).

1] A kerygmatic purpose, i.e., to further elaborate on the apostolic proclamation of salvation through Jesus, already begun in Luke’s gospel.

2] An apologetic purpose, i.e., to demonstrate to Theophilus that Christianity was not a political threat to the Roman Empire, as many of the Jews characterized it.

3] A conciliatory purpose, i.e., that Peter and Paul and each of their respective apostolic ministries, were not at odds with one another.

4] A catechetical purpose, i.e., for instructional use within the various churches to document how Christianity moved from its origins in Palestine to become a movement throughout the Roman Empire, the known world of its day.

b) Focusing on the apologetic purpose, it has also been suggested that not only does Luke seek to demonstrate in a broad way that Christianity was not a political threat to Rome, but in a more narrow way that Paul was not a threat to Judaism.

1] It is so clearly evident in both the Acts account of Paul and in Paul’s letters that he was often misunderstood and maligned, especially by the Jews, including his own Jewish brethren.

2] Luke was his friend and traveling companion for many years, most likely until the time of Paul’s death, so why could it not be said that part of Luke’s purpose in writing Acts, especially those parts that included Paul, was to defend his friend and mentor against misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

3] “To appease a significant and theologically vocal minority of Jewish believers within the Christian community, it is suggested, Luke presents Paul not as one opposed to Torah but as a true teacher of Israel.” (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings Of The New Testament: An Interpretation, p. 202-203).

4] If this is true, and there is no reason to doubt this purpose, although perhaps not the main purpose, then as Luke documents the spread of Christianity, he does so in defense of his friend seeking to vindicate both Paul and Paul’s message of the gospel.

5] For this reason, Luke would portray Paul in the way that he saw him – a charismatic miracle worker, with superb rhetorical skills, delivering the message of the gospel that was not a threat to Rome or to Judaism, but in fact was the fulfillment of all that God had promised to Israel, which included all nations.



3) The purpose of Paul’s letters.

a) It has been recognized that Paul’s letters are “occasional” letters, i.e., Paul had specific purposes in writing each of the letters he did, addressing issues in which he believed his recipients needed further help in understanding the truth of the gospel, as well as the application of the gospel.

1] There is no question that Paul, in his letters, narrates certain historical events in his life, but nowhere does he record his whole history.

2] Paul’s purpose in making the remarks he does about himself was not for the purpose of writing an autobiography, but to accomplish a much bigger, deeper purpose.

3] “Paul tells us about himself only in passages where he is trying to meet objections of those who cast doubt and aspersions on his motives and work.” (Gareth L. Reese, New Testament History: Acts, p. xix).

b) As previously noted, Paul was frequently misunderstood and misrepresented; he had enemies who sought to undermine his influence by accusing him of teaching things which he did not teach or by casting doubt on his motives in doing the things he did (cf. Gal. 5:7-12; 6:17; 2 Cor. 11:12-13; Rom. 3:8; Phil. 1:15-17).

c) Consequently, Paul, in some of his letters, sought to defend himself against these false and malicious charges, but doing so in an humble manner.

d) Those who sought to undermine his work did so by boasting in themselves (or whomever they followed) seeking to demonstrate that they were smarter and wiser than Paul – “super apostles” (cf. 2 Cor. 10:7 – 11:15, esp. note 11:5).

e) Instead of defending himself as a true apostle of Jesus by making himself appear to be great or superior, Paul was more interested in elevating the one whom he served.

f) He sought to do this by minimizing his speaking skills and downplaying his ability to perform miracles so as to elevate Jesus and the message of the cross.

g) This is demonstrated throughout his letters; Paul was more concerned about boasting in his suffering and in his weaknesses so as to elevate Jesus, His Lord and King, and to elevate the message of the cross (cf. 2 Cor. 12:9-10).

3. Once the purpose(s) of the book of Acts and the letters of Paul are understood, respectively, there is no problem in understanding why it is that Luke portrays Paul one way, while Paul portrays himself another.

a. Luke’s purpose is decidedly different from Paul’s purpose.

b. Quoting Jacob Jervell, “I am therefore inclined to assert that what Luke writes on the subject of Paul is historically correct.” (The Unknown Paul, p. 75).

Conclusion:



I. There are many more examples of apparent discrepancies that exist between the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul.

A. In this study, I have examined those which I have found are the most frequently addressed.

B. To try to examine all of them would require more than this simple outline.

C. It would require a book, perhaps volumes of books.

D. Those books have been written, and on a much more scholarly, academic level, some of which are sited in the “works consulted” at the end of this outline.

II. I want to conclude this study by paraphrasing Richard Longenecker and say, “When the events and statements of Acts cannot be correlated with Paul’s letters there are solutions besides a skepticism of the veracity of Acts.” (Paul, Apostle Of Liberty, p. 258).

Tom Kinzel 2033 Todds Drive Kingsport, TN 37660 [email protected]



Works Consulted Bercovitz, J. Peter. “Acts as a Source (3): The Convergence and the Distance Between the Letters and Acts.” As Paul

tells it… www.paulonpaul.org.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Eds. Robert W. Yarbrough and Roberts H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Bruce, F.F. Paul In Acts And Letters. The IVP Dictionary of the New Testament, Ed. Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004.

______ The Book Of The Acts. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Ed. F.F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

______ “Is Paul of Acts the Real Paul?” Biblical Studies.org. www.biblicalstuides.org.uk/pdf/bjrl/real-paul-bruce.pdf.

Conybeare, W.J. and J.S. Howson. Life and Epistles of St. Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

House, H. Wayne. Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Jervell, Jacob. The Unknown Paul. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Luke-Acts, Book Of. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

______ The Writings Of The New Testament. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1986.

Keck, Leander E. Paul And His Letters. Proclamation Commentaries. Ed. Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Kistemaker, Simon J. Acts. New Testament Commentary. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1990.

Longenecker, Richard N. Paul, Apostle Of Liberty. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964.

______ The Acts Of The Apostles. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Vol. 9. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

McCallum, Dennis. “A Chronological Study of Paul’s Ministry.” Xenos Christian Fellowship. www.xenos.org/classes/chronop.htm.

Meyer, H.A.W. The Acts of the Apostles. Meyer’s Commentary On The New Testament. Vol. 4. Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, 1980.

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament History:Acts. Joplin: College Press, 1976.

Tobin, Paul. “The Unhistorical Portrayal of Paul in Acts.” The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: A Skeptics Guide to Christianity. www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/lukepaul.html.

acts and the epistles tom kinzel -...

Documents